Apollo Landing Sites Spotted in Sharp New Detail

[oneblueorange]

Piss Poor.....

[dansing124]

GREAT!



[MrToiletface]

how do we know these pics arent fake, especially since they didnt release them until around 24 hours after they were taken. they were not immediately released like all the others. america lies about every war theyve ever been involved with. why trust them at all when the military is involved? only a moron would trust the american government, which seems to be the case given their educational statistics. neil and buzz were airplane pilots, nothing else. get over it and collapse already america!

[VideoFromSpace]

@MrToiletface You sure?

[hunchbacked]

@VideoFromSpace

This is absolutely ridiculous, because neither the lander nor the rover tracks can appear like they do on the photos.

And, oh surprise, if I record the image files on my disk and I check their headers, they all bear the signature of Adobe photoshop.

[GoneToPlaid]

@hunchbacked You just can't help it, can you? Obviously you have some deep seated need to spread your moon hoax bullshit in the comments section of every version of this video posted here on YouTube.

[VideoFromSpace]

@hunchbacked Why can't they. Please explain.

[hunchbacked]

@VideoFromSpace

Because, on the moon, there is no water.

Therefore the lunar dust is uniform.

It has the same color on the surface as a little deeper.

The wheels may make a print in the lunar dust, but this print will be the same color as the dust on the surface.

When you are close you can see the relief of the tracks, but, when you are far, you see nothing, you can't see the relief of the tracks from this distance.

[VideoFromSpace]

@hunchbacked Interesting logic. Might be true; IF the images were taken from directly overhead at "high noon"local time (the Sun directly "behind" the sensor). But with any angularity of either, you'd see shadow from the relief. Also the compression of the dust by the mass of the passing wheel alters it's reflectivity. Thank goodness there ISN'T any liquid water...or these tracks from 42 years ago would be neither so pristine nor so obvious.

[hunchbacked]

@VideoFromSpace

Shadow from the relief?

The shaded part is not important, it does not cover the whole track; it is not visible from far.

I could take as a comparison jeep tracks in the sahara.

You can see them close, not far; they don't appear as dark or grey lines.

And, if you take as a reference the photos of the mission, the tracks don't appear that deep (anyway the photos of the missions are BS).

[hunchbacked]

@VideoFromSpace

And on the photos of the mission, the ground is obviously kind of muddy, it looks irrealistic.

It does not look natural.

[hunchbacked]

@VideoFromSpace

If you consider the photos of the missions serious (which I don't), I'll take an example: Consider the photo AS17-137-2011; we see the rover in the distance, but it is taken closer than the LRO photos.

Can you see the rover tracks as grey lines over a clearer ground?

No, you can't.

Explain me that?

[VideoFromSpace]

@hunchbacked Yes you certainly can see 'em. In all of the A-17 photos. [Try AS17-137-20876, or any other.] Likewise in those of prior missions back to A-14 (first one with a wheeled cart, though it wasn't powered). When you find yourself going to extraordinary complexity, or fear of conspiracy, to explain simple phenomena, you're generally barking up the wrong tree. You're totally welcome to to so, of course. But, honestly; they went. All else is self-serving grandiosity.

[hunchbacked]

@VideoFromSpace

you can see them as two parallel (not always parallel) lines; between the lines, the ground is clear; when these lines are seen from far, they become invisible, two small to be seen.

On the photos, the lander is very small, and, at the scale of the lander, these lines are much thinner, too thin not to even represent a pixel on the photo.

Moreover, the ground seems too slimy, has the kind of structure it would have on earth and not on the moon.

[hunchbacked]

@VideoFromSpace

You really happy to believe in the Apollo BS; personally I can't, it hurts my common sense.

[VideoFromSpace]

@hunchbacked You're clearly smart. And a questioning spirit is the very foundation of science. So here's the thing: Your common sense isn't common to the Moon. Your intuition developed on the water-rich, one gravity Earth. The lunar regolith (surface dust) is extremely fine-grained, very sharp and jagged. It sticks to and gets into everything. The Apollo guys commented on this in real time (I heard them). It behaves more like wet cornstarch than any sand you know. Think about this.

[hunchbacked]

@VideoFromSpace

What makes stick on earth is water; this is what causes the adherence.

Without water, there is no adherence.

Whatever, the lines of the tracks have the width of a tire and not of the rover; they are too thin to be seen from that distance.

You can't see something which is smaller than a pixel.

[hunchbacked]

@VideoFromSpace

I have made calculations on a LRO photo the one with the reference M109032389LE

I have taken a window enclosing the whole lander with all its footpads; it was a window 35*33; we'll say 35 pixels.

Between two opposite foodpads, there was 9.4 meters.

The width a a tire was, according to the documentation, 22.96 centimers; we'll say 25 centimeters.

[hunchbacked]

@VideoFromSpace

So, the width of a track left by a tire is theoretically: 35*0.25/0.4=0.93 pixel, so less than a pixel.

Yet, the same tracks appear on the photo with a width of several pixels, I would say something like 10 pixels (difficult to appreciate exactly, but consistently more than one pixel).

[hunchbacked]

@VideoFromSpace

These lines would rather correspond with the total width of the rover, like the space between the tracks of the tires was also dark; but it isn't on the photos of the missions!

[VideoFromSpace]

@hunchbacked We applaud your method. But take it all the way: Consider the grey-scale of a single pixel containing some darkened information from shadows in two sets of rover tracks. Now compare that to the grey-scale of an adjacent pixel which contains no "track" information at all. There's your answer.

[hunchbacked]

@VideoFromSpace

That would make only one pixel, not several pixels!

[VideoFromSpace]

@hunchbacked Think: scatter.

[hunchbacked]

@VideoFromSpace

Scatttering does not explain what we see.

I'll make a demonstration with the lander, the rover, and the tracks all correctly scaled, and I'll reduce to the scale we see on the photos to show the problem.

The rover tracks should not be visible, not as consistently visible as what we see on the photos.

[MyAccount4TrollingU]

@MrToiletface Did you stop your meds?

[superchitownhustler]

Great video. Where you at deadJesus100 et al? Pissing on yourself? Your mom?

[johnredpath]

nice posting amazing to see the landing sites after such a long time

[necromantiac666]

πουτσες blue !!!!!!!

[alexsworld11]

ws apollo 18 an accual secret mission sent to the moon?

[VideoFromSpace]

@alexsworld11 No. There was supposed to be a real Apollo 18, but President Nixon ordered NASA's budget cut to prevent it from flying. The movie is a fun plot, but totally fiction.

[tryithere]

At :44 , the picture looks like Buckwheat.

[MrTerrificII]

My "jaw also dropped to the ground" due to all of the BS and ROCKS I saw! Sorry dude, you can see NOTHING but rocks!

[VideoFromSpace]

@MrTerrificII Look again.

[aerofreakingy]

Is der any video to prove the trajectory of less exposure from Radiation belt for apollo 11 crew??

[RobinRichardRajan]

To prove a fake landing, they make a fake video after the fake photos are questioned by conspiracy theorists. Maybe in some 10yrs, with better technology, we can find that this video too has been faked!!

[tryithere]

@RobinRichardRajan You're father should have faked it.

[tryithere]

@tryithere Your father should have faked it.

[aerofreakingy]

show me one proof its a real moon!!

[kyamicobo]

Its looks fake to me, lol. If google earth can take much clearer pictures from space to earth, which is alot further distance than the orbiter is to the moon, how come the pictures look like crap? I was dissapointed. I would like to believe we actually went to the moon but this doesnt help. Im just saying, they have better technology to take pictures from of the moon, and they show us this junk. Whoo hoo :(

[TheApinator]

@kyamicobo True, we can see a license plate from space, but we cant even see a clear picture of the moon surface. Smells funny to me too.

[dotaonline]

@TheApinator I though it was the smell on an unwashed tinfoil hat.

[VideoFromSpace]

@kyamicobo No, "they" don't. [They is you, by the way, if you're American, European, Canadian, Russian or Japanese.] Google Earth uses many different image sets, taken over a period of tears from satellites, aircraft and ground vehicles. These images are from one science probe in lunar orbit which hasn't been there very long. Sure, the military intel community has access to orbiting cameras that are probably an order of magnitude or so better. But there are no spy satellites orbiting the Moon.

[kyamicobo]

@VideoFromSpace "They" (NASA) Need to invest in sending some spy satellites to the moon. Cant they afford to send at least one spy satellite to the moon to take some good pictures. I mean, if it really is that important to them they would have by now. But Noooo. Whoo hoo :(

[VideoFromSpace]

@kyamicobo Well, NASA's not a spy agency. You don't pay "them" to do that. You pay NRO, or CIA, or DHS... And, actually, the NASA image quality is amazing; a bit like finding your parked SUV and show-shoe tracks amid all of Antarctica.

[eventcone]

@kyamicobo (cont).

Apollo's reality is accepted without question by the world's scientific and academic communities. Meanwhile a relatively small group of "internet warriors" with little or no relevant credentials think that they have spotted a evidence of fakery where the world's experts have not?

[tryithere]

@eventcone It makes them feel like they are important. Like they are smarter then everybody else but they are just delusional idiots.

[nakazatoGTR]

@kyamicobo yup classic case of rejective reasoning, a new term i coined for people who will never believe any evidence of the moon landing, thing 100 moves ahead you guys will say the future landings are fake as well.. no evidence will satisfy you you are just sayin new evidence will satisfy you but truth is you are hardened enough to simply relish on the other side of the hoax issue.

[occhamite]

@kyamicobo Then try this: watch?v=ul87ieOZpaQ

[1234doawee]

@kyamicobo u r the biggest retard on yt, i hope something bad happens 2 u

[XzZyBiT]

lets hack nasa

xD

[VideoFromSpace]

@XzZyBiT Please don't. Harness your adolescent energy to better purpose.

[shaggietrip]

What ever! The dust they kicked up was not visible in any of their photos. IE: on the landing feet ect. What did they do clean off the lem before taking pics. BS

[Kargoneth]

Pollution on the moon!

[gofigurevideos]

Didnt NASA invent photoshop.

[VideoFromSpace]

@gofigurevideos No. Nor did they perform the alien autopsy.

[pt1qard]

@gofigurevideos No.

[zassounotsukushi]

Now I'm wondering: how are the moon landing conspiracy people going to explain THAT?

[GuyFromCoby]

@zassounotsukushi Images were taken from NASA, thus they can fake these images.

(lols).

[zassounotsukushi]

@GuyFromCoby 0:28 oh, computer generated. I'm sure the rest of the images are computer generated too. Heck, it all looks like a video game. Is that guy talking even a real person? The jig is up NASA!

[GuyFromCoby]

@zassounotsukushi Hahaha +1.

[godbluffvdgg]

@zassounotsukushi Explain what? It speaks for itself. Those images are sad. They prove absolutely nothing. We have cameras here on earth that can take a more clear picture. You're telling me that a probe, orbiting the moon can only produce a FIFTEEN MILE HIGH PHOTO? Did you just get your computer 21 hours ago? If you want to believe the lie, great. Don't ridicule others who know 100% that those photos are frauds. We won't ridicule you for your unwavering belief in known liars, thieves and fraud

[eventcone]

@godbluffvdgg Here's how it is:

LRO was not sent to the Moon to image the Apollo sites to prove the moonlandings. Imaging them was just a sideline, a bonus of it's main mission. In fact, it is not even mentioned in a list of some half dozen LRO Mission Objectives.

Those objectives centred around mapping the whole surface (in greater detail than had been done previously) as a precursor to future landings, not in imaging small areas to ultra high res.

[eventcone]

@godbluffvdgg The LRO images of the Apollo sites are superb, given the equipment used.

Yes they COULD have aquired much better resolution images IF they had sent a heavy, expensive, miltary spysat grade imaging system all the way to the moon - BUT WHY WOULD THEY?

The mission is done to a budget. Can you imagine the outcry from taxpayers and their representatives if NASA had said they were adding several hundred million $ to the budget just to get cooler pictures of the Apollo sites?

[akshaydude1]

first :D